Changing your name may be legally easy, but it's always seemed to me like a hideous hassle in practical terms - all the stuff still using your old name needing to be updated. My surname is hard to spell and pronounce for most organisations I deal with, and so I wouldn't have chosen it if I'd had free choice at the age of (say) 18, but now I've got it the inconvenience is easily outweighed by inertia.
What I always find surprising is that so many women still say they'll change their names on marriage. I can't imagine wanting to change my name for a reason like that, and therefore I had vaguely assumed that now women had the option to keep their original surname, most of them would jump at it like a shot. I still keep being surprised at how wrong I was.
What I always find surprising is that so many women still say they'll change their names on marriage.
Surprises me too, though it does save on hassle when it comes to deciding on the childrens' surnames. I've got friends whose lads have a double-barrelled surname, and it strikes me as putting the decision off (if they have children with women who are similarly double-barrelled, are their children going to have four surnames?). Some people go for a "boys take the father's surname, girls the mother's" solution, which seems unsatisfactory.
I've always wished my middle name was something more exotic than John, but I wouldn't change it.
I've absolutely no desire to change my name - I like having an obscure surname - McAtamney and I like being a Karen:-)
And I've no intention of changing it if I ever marry - I don't know what I'd name my children given that McAtamney probably wouldn't double-barrel well, but I'll deal with that when the time comes....
I see the name change as part of the commitment to the new family the marriage is forming. My father's name is neither rare nor is it likely to die out in my generation. So I will be Rachel Finch.
I'm not sure that changing my name is that much more hassle than changing my address, and done once will result in far less hassle in the long term because of society's expectations. And I think I'll enjoy being married a lot more than moving house ;)
hassle> I also don't know why more couples don't change names at all.
double-barrelled> not if you pick a completely new name. This would of course have to be banned in America or you'd get far too many Honeypies and Snookumses.
If my name were particularly rare, or I had no siblings, I would probably ask Tony to change his name. It's easier for us to have the same name because that's how society is, especially if we decide to have kids. I have no patience for double-barrelled names, so one of us would be changing. However, most of the western world is used to women changing their name, so that seems easiest too. I am young enough that the name change should not affect my career and indeed Finch is probably a better known name than my own in my particular field ;) I like the tradition of changing my name and see more benefit than harm to me in doing so. Other women may feel differently, I do not presume to speak for them.
if a woman changes her name to demonstrate her commitment, what does a man do to demonstrate his? We're getting married, I think that's a pretty huge statement of commitment. After 'all that I am I give to you, all that I have I share with you', what more is there to say or commit? I'm deeply uncomfortable with contractual, tit-for-tat, you do this and I'll do that arrangements. That's a dreadful basis for a relationship, to insist that every gesture is equally and oppositely repaid, to make love into a currency.
I mention in passing that my engagement ring is probably the single most valuable thing I've ever owned and I/my family have given Tony nothing of equivalent value. And that's just its monetary value, leaving aside its family history, hopes and the symbolism of wearing the ring.
I found my original surname bland, dull, and lacking in any meaningful history. It was given to my great-grandfather by his step-father, and was wildly off for that side of the family's 'ethnic origin', as it were. My dad was frequently told off for 'playing dumb' by teachers who could not believe that a boy with a very common British surname didn't speak English well (he arrived in Britain aged 12 not speaking a word of it).
My married surname might not be exotic but it's pleasing enough, has only one (comparatively rare) alternative spelling, and I don't see any compelling reason for us to have different surnames. I do still have my passport in my maiden name, which means carrying my marriage certificate when travelling with smallclanger (who does obviously have the family surname), but the only reasons I haven't changed it yet are inertia/laziness, and lately, waiting for the new biometric ones to come in, since it has 2 years left before it expires.
We've discussed this before, but for me it's both a dislike of my own name and a desire for family uniformity. It seems silly to make a partner change its name to mine when I don't even like mine (although had I changed it already, I would probably ask/have asked)
… women had the option to keep their original surname…
Is it not still the case that a woman's legal name changes on marriage unless she actually makes the effort to keep the old one? I must admit I'm not up on the legal aspects of this, but it is still very much the default for a woman to take her husband's surname.
It is in the UK. Signing the marriage certificate changes your legal name automatically, but since we also have the pleasing arrangement that you merely need notify banks etc of the name you wish to use, it makes little difference in real terms if you don't then change it with any services or whatever. (See: my legally still using my old passport. My carrying of the marriage certificate is merely to avoid hassle where smallclanger's parentage might be questioned, say, if you were swept out to sea or something similarly awkward while we were on holiday.)
AIUI this is not the case in the USA, one has to make a conscious effort and act to change one's legal name upon marriage, but ICBW.
It seems mostly to be a formality, however: you just send the marriage certificate or a photocopy of it to the various people who have your name on record and tell them it's now changed. I don't know how they know your 'true' name in any other way than what they have on record.
There are many good reasons to do it. Firstly, there is still the major idea that a family has a single family name. This also makes things easier on the children. As a teacher I'm faced with many phonecalls of the "I'm Mary Smith, Jane Johnson's mother" variety, which are all significantly simplified if you all share the same name. Plus, there is a feeling of unity: if you don't want that unity, why are you getting married in the first place?
Of course, another option is to both take the womans name (which apparently happens about 10% of the time these days) or even just make up a new name (1% do this, supposedly). I can't say that I'm too enthralled about marrying into the Garside family (given that most of them hate me), but getting rid of 'Burt' (which is far too close to 'burk') is one of the smarter things I've done ;-)
Plus Emma Garside sounds much better than Emma Burt.
What I always find surprising is that so many women still say they'll change their names on marriage. I can't imagine wanting to change my name for a reason like that
I can't imagine wanting to change it for such a reason either. So I didn't :-)
CHanging mine was actually so that the legal documents caught up with what the real world already knew me as.. I had A-level results in a name that wasn't the one on my passport and birth certificate..
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:45 am (UTC)What I always find surprising is that so many women still say they'll change their names on marriage. I can't imagine wanting to change my name for a reason like that, and therefore I had vaguely assumed that now women had the option to keep their original surname, most of them would jump at it like a shot. I still keep being surprised at how wrong I was.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 09:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 10:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 11:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:58 am (UTC)Surprises me too, though it does save on hassle when it comes to deciding on the childrens' surnames. I've got friends whose lads have a double-barrelled surname, and it strikes me as putting the decision off (if they have children with women who are similarly double-barrelled, are their children going to have four surnames?). Some people go for a "boys take the father's surname, girls the mother's" solution, which seems unsatisfactory.
I've always wished my middle name was something more exotic than John, but I wouldn't change it.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 07:59 am (UTC)And I've no intention of changing it if I ever marry - I don't know what I'd name my children given that McAtamney probably wouldn't double-barrel well, but I'll deal with that when the time comes....
marriage
Date: 2004-08-06 08:17 am (UTC)I'm not sure that changing my name is that much more hassle than changing my address, and done once will result in far less hassle in the long term because of society's expectations. And I think I'll enjoy being married a lot more than moving house ;)
Re: marriage
Date: 2004-08-06 08:41 am (UTC)Doesn't the one-sided-ness of such a strong sign of commitment disturb you?
I don't know why more couples don't both change to a new shared name these days, given the hassle is likely to be more equal than in the past.
Re: marriage
Date: 2004-08-06 09:00 am (UTC)Also, tends to produce unwieldy double-barrelled names...
Re: marriage
Date: 2004-08-06 09:02 am (UTC)double-barrelled> not if you pick a completely new name. This would of course have to be banned in America or you'd get far too many Honeypies and Snookumses.
Re: marriage
From:Re: marriage
Date: 2004-08-06 10:08 am (UTC)Re: marriage
Date: 2004-08-06 08:46 am (UTC)So it won't be Tony Coleman, then :-)
On a slightly more serious note - if a woman changes her name to demonstrate her commitment, what does a man do to demonstrate his?
Re: marriage
Date: 2004-08-06 10:07 am (UTC)if a woman changes her name to demonstrate her commitment, what does a man do to demonstrate his?
We're getting married, I think that's a pretty huge statement of commitment. After 'all that I am I give to you, all that I have I share with you', what more is there to say or commit? I'm deeply uncomfortable with contractual, tit-for-tat, you do this and I'll do that arrangements. That's a dreadful basis for a relationship, to insist that every gesture is equally and oppositely repaid, to make love into a currency.
I mention in passing that my engagement ring is probably the single most valuable thing I've ever owned and I/my family have given Tony nothing of equivalent value. And that's just its monetary value, leaving aside its family history, hopes and the symbolism of wearing the ring.
Re: marriage
From:Re: marriage
From:Re: marriage
From:Re: marriage
From:Re: marriage
From:Re: marriage
Date: 2004-08-06 10:07 am (UTC)Re: marriage
Date: 2004-08-06 11:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 08:41 am (UTC)My married surname might not be exotic but it's pleasing enough, has only one (comparatively rare) alternative spelling, and I don't see any compelling reason for us to have different surnames. I do still have my passport in my maiden name, which means carrying my marriage certificate when travelling with
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 08:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 09:42 am (UTC)Is it not still the case that a woman's legal name changes on marriage unless she actually makes the effort to keep the old one? I must admit I'm not up on the legal aspects of this, but it is still very much the default for a woman to take her husband's surname.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 09:58 am (UTC)AIUI this is not the case in the USA, one has to make a conscious effort and act to change one's legal name upon marriage, but ICBW.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 10:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 10:06 am (UTC)Of course, another option is to both take the womans name (which apparently happens about 10% of the time these days) or even just make up a new name (1% do this, supposedly). I can't say that I'm too enthralled about marrying into the Garside family (given that most of them hate me), but getting rid of 'Burt' (which is far too close to 'burk') is one of the smarter things I've done ;-)
Plus Emma Garside sounds much better than Emma Burt.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 11:08 am (UTC)I can't imagine wanting to change it for such a reason either. So I didn't :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-06 11:22 am (UTC)